The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 15 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Research, market, and policy implications of permanently affordable housing: lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts
Open accessAbstract
As with many Anglophone nations, Australia displays a dualistic housing system dominated by private ownership and private rental, both of which demonstrate an ongoing and intensifying lack of affordability. Despite extensive public subsidisation, rates of ownership have dropped in recent years while the proportion of renters is increasing. Alongside calls for private rental reforms to make this more appropriate as a form of long-term tenure, there is growing interest in intermediate tenure forms to allow easier access to ownership, ease the pressure on the country’s marginalised social housing, and provide a greater range of options. Due to their small scale and relative newness in Australia, intermediate tenures such as shared equity, community land trusts, and housing co-operatives remain under-researched and unfamiliar, with previous research showing limited interest in shared equity products amongst potential buyers. This paper presents data from more recent focus groups amongst would-be buyers, showing latent market interest in resale-restricted products, with policy and market implications of both national and international relevance. The work also highlights a role for research in fostering awareness and understanding of such models.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
In Melbourne focus groups with 35 would-be buyers, most (32 of 35) said they would immediately sign up for permanently affordable CLT-style leasehold or co-ownership models with tight resale restrictions and no staircasing. The paper argues this indicates latent market demand based on ontological aspirations—stability, autonomy, and security—rather than capital gain, with implications for policy and research on intermediate tenures.
Key findings
- 32 of 35 participants would have signed up immediately if housing was available; there was no stated preference between a 99-year renewable, inheritable lease and a co-ownership deed.
- Participants were attracted by security of tenure, ability to keep pets, make minor repairs, avoid “dead money” rent, and access limited equity; resale restrictions and limited equity gain were not raised as issues until inheritance, and none flagged inheritance concerns as significant enough to reduce interest.
- Recruitment responses showed moderate-to-high incomes relative to Melbourne medians: 22 of 38 were on individual incomes of $50,000–$80,000; household incomes were 13% under $50,000, 37% $50,000–$100,000, 42% $100,000–$150,000, and 8% over $150,000; most respondents (31) lived in private rental.
- The five-year no-resale restriction in Victorian leasehold did not trouble participants, who proposed workarounds such as finding an income-qualified tenant; governance interest ranged from casual events to elected board positions.
Methods
- Four focus groups in Melbourne, Victoria, with 35 participants (nine per group; two registered participants did not attend), recruited by an independent agency; participants were aged 25–36, employed, renting, and looking to buy but unable due to housing prices, and were offered a $100 shopping voucher.
- Participants were presented with two hypothetical CLT-based models: a 99-year renewable and inheritable lease and a co-ownership deed, both for an inner-city apartment at a cost-recovery basis of 25–50% below market, with a resale restriction returning the resident 25% of the agreed change in property value and no staircasing to full ownership.
- Focus groups were recorded and transcribed with ethics approval H10705; discussions covered housing experiences, reactions to the models, and interest in organisational governance, alongside anonymised recruitment questions on household characteristics.
Limitations
- Stated: the focus groups were small-scale and pilot; only a subsidy retention model was discussed, so the study could not comparatively scrutinise the nature of the model’s appeal; possible self-selection of participants interested in alternative approaches; researcher familiarity and power may have influenced participant comfort; and questions remain whether high interest was due to no higher-equity option being offered, worsened affordability since earlier research, inherent model appeal, and/or self-selection.
- Stated: the study scope and method leave unclear whether multi-generational living arrangements were due to affordability, convenience, and/or carer obligations.
- Evident from the text: the findings are Melbourne-specific, based on hypothetical models and stated intentions rather than actual purchases, and the sample is not representative of all Australian would-be buyers.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
17 Own result · 6 Sources not found · 5 Own interpretation · 5 No basis given · 2 No full text of the sources · 1 Partly supported · 1 Not checked yet · 1 Own method
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While neither of these issues was flagged by more than a few participants, both highlight the importance of clear communication and independent legal advice in the establishment and implementation of resale-restricted programmes.”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Focus group discussions -housing experiences and reactions to CLT models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“restrictions on equity gain at termination-and indeed the idea of home as an asset more generally-were not raised as an issue by participants until they considered the issue of inheritance.”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Focus group discussions -housing experiences and reactions to CLT models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“focus group discussions revealed participants' sense of an inherent value in the diversity of ways in which residents might be involved in governance”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Focus group discussions -housing experiences and reactions to CLT models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“firstly, the diversity of household forms amongst participants suggests that diverse physical design options are also of interest.”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Discussion -implications for housing systems in Australia and beyond
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such wrap-around service provision was raised by focus group participants as a desirable inclusion of any future models.”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Focus group discussions -housing experiences and reactions to CLT models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“none of the respondents flagged this as a significant enough issue to reduce their interest in the options”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Focus group discussions -housing experiences and reactions to CLT models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“nearly all focus group participants were prepared to forego equity gains in return for the stability and autonomy that the model provided, aligning with data on the lived experiences of CLT residents in the uSA (Martin et al., 2020).”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Discussion -implications for housing systems in Australia and beyond
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The five-year restriction on reselling in a leasehold option did not trouble participants”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Focus group discussions -housing experiences and reactions to CLT models
plainn = 35- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each focus group contained individuals who expressed interest in being involved in the partner organisation.”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Focus group discussions -housing experiences and reactions to CLT models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In all of the focus groups, individuals referred to aspirations that by and large were non-financial, so stakeholders looking to examine or broaden affordable housing options may need to acknowledge these aspirations by thinking and talking beyond 'traditional' housing economics or mere asset considerations of housing.”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Discussion -implications for housing systems in Australia and beyond
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 13
- Probably not a substantial claim. 8
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“There is irony here in that the 'individual equity' models documented as more appealing by Pinnegar et al. (2009) on the basis of the resident's greater potential equity gain and ability to buy the partner out, have been demonstrating adverse outcomes with regards to the complexity of actually doing so (eg., Clarke & Heywood, 2012), in addition to raising questions regarding the models' ability to”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Focus group discussions -housing experiences and reactions to CLT models
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Pinnegar et al. (2009)
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Not matchedcites Clarke & Heywood, 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Jacobus & Lubell, 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It seemed that the team's familiarity and comfort with the model was reassuring and of interest to participants; this may also have made participants more comfortable with the models.”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Discussion -implications for housing systems in Australia and beyond
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Several participants also appreciated the models' broader social goal of ensuring homes were not sub-let for profit through platforms such as AirBnB and were kept affordable in perpetuity”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Focus group discussions -housing experiences and reactions to CLT models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As the focus groups showed no preference for leasehold or co-ownership models, and a primary concern with issues of stability and autonomy, it would seem there are grounds to use that core insight to both reform rental housing and develop resale-restricted ownership models.”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Conclusion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is also worth noting that the team's long-term and ongoing experience as precarious renters was vital in building rapport and demonstrating understanding of focus group participants' situations and experiences.”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Conclusion
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This ranged from casual events like annual barbeques through to formal elected Board positions; the diversity of individual interests was also noted.”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Focus group discussions -housing experiences and reactions to CLT models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The focus group participants' overwhelming interest in resale-restricted leasehold and co-ownership models, with no stated preference for either form”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Focus group participants' expressed interest in the models is a valid indicator of actual market demand for resale-restricted products.
- Rests on an assumption: The focus group sample is representative of the broader population of would-be buyers in Melbourne/Australia.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main challenges that were mentioned in some groups were the possible complexity of legal agreements and whether or not the equity generated at resale would enable exit”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Focus group discussions -housing experiences and reactions to CLT models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In response to such issues, the model proposed by Crabtree et al. (2015), in which the first two years of a lease were used as a trial period to both test the relationship between the resident and the provider and to generate a deposit for the resident, was discussed as a possibility and met with definite interest.”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Focus group discussions -housing experiences and reactions to CLT models
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Crabtree et al. (2015)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants were greatly attracted to the security of tenure, ability to have pets, ability to make minor repairs, and the ability to access their equity upon termination”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Focus group discussions -housing experiences and reactions to CLT models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this research, it was clear that both the researcher's and the research assistant's knowledge of CLTs was pivotal in assessing participants' interest in the proposed models.”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Conclusion
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the focus group data suggests that exit was not a priority for participants and when issues of wealth generation were considered, participants quickly identified channels for this other than their home.”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Discussion -implications for housing systems in Australia and beyond
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“given the then-required five-year termination prohibition period in Victoria, that was seen as perhaps a more feasible trial period duration.”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Focus group discussions -housing experiences and reactions to CLT models
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Australia displays a dualistic housing system dominated by private ownership and private rental, both of which demonstrate an ongoing and intensifying lack of affordability.”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites CoreLogic, 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Anglicare Australia, 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thirdly, the focus groups' discussion of a subsidy retention model alone did not enable comparative scrutiny of the nature of the model's appeal, beyond participants' stated attraction to being able to not move, to have pets, and not pay dead rent money.”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Discussion -implications for housing systems in Australia and beyond
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Innovative design and development models such as Melbourne's Baugruppen-inspired nightingale developments are over-subscribed, which shows there is a definite market for that model's typology of compact units complemented by high-amenity shared spaces (Walters, 2019).”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Discussion -implications for housing systems in Australia and beyond
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Walters, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In contrast, studies to date have shown that uS models of subsidy retention have been easy to manage at exit and able to support smooth transitions out of the programmer, while also being able to retain affordability (e.g., Davis & Demetrowitz, 2003;Temkin et al., 2013).”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Focus group discussions -housing experiences and reactions to CLT models
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Davis & Demetrowitz, 2003
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Temkin et al., 2013 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The research in this paper suggests market appetite may be greater than believed and based on ontological rather than financial aspects of housing, offering ground for diversification into a greater range of stable and dignified housing options.”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This positions Australia as possibly set to replicate the 2008-09 foreclosure crisis of the uSA.”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Australian households are carrying higher rates of mortgage debt amidst increased living costs and pending interest rate increases.
The paper relies on this without support.
Focus group participants' expressed interest in the models is a valid indicator of actual market demand for resale-restricted products.
“suggests there is a latent market for models that can deliver ongoing affordability and retain homes as permanently affordable stock.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The focus group sample is representative of the broader population of would-be buyers in Melbourne/Australia.
“The focus group participants' overwhelming interest in resale-restricted leasehold and co-ownership models”
The paper relies on this without support.
The history of CLTs as community-led organisations shows they are appropriate to deliberative development models and designs that respond to community needs, which is partly driving their uptake internationally in addition to their affordability mechanisms.
“The history of CLTs as community-led organisations shows they are appropriate to deliberative development models and designs that respond to community needs, which is partly driving their uptake internationally in addition to their affordability mechanisms.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Australian households are carrying higher rates of mortgage debt amidst increased living costs and pending interest rate increases.
“As a microcosm of broader systemic issues, Australian households are carrying higher rates of mortgage debt amidst increased living costs and pending interest rate increases.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Focus group participants' stated interest and preferences are indicative of a latent market in Australia.
“While small scale, the focus groups would suggest that in Australia, there is a latent market for diverse affordable home ownership options that restrict resale values to maintain affordability.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“This generated 35 participants and associated response sets.focus groups were run in the evening of two consecutive weekdays at a venue that is readily accessible by public transport.food and non-alcoholic beverages were provided.four focus groups were held with nine participants in each; two registered participants did not attend.”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Method -focus group design and approach
Reported 35 · recomputed 36
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Method -focus group design and approach
“This generated 35 participants and associated response sets.”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Recruitment questions -household characteristics
“In their recruitment responses, most participants (25 of 38) stated they were in full time work, with six in part time work, three in home duties, two self-employed, and two studying (see figure 1).”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > Introduction
“in 2024, a widely-used annual national snapshot of rental affordability recorded both the lowest number of rental properties available and the lowest rates of affordability on record, noting that on average, rents had increased 8.5 per cent in the previous 12 months (Anglicare Australia, 2023).”
§ lessons from Australian discussions about community land trusts > References
“Anglicare Australia. (2023). Rental Affordability Snapshot. National Report. fourteenth Edition.”
Citations
Cites
Crabtree, L., & Hes, D. (2009) · Housing Studies · doi:10.1080/02673030802704337 · Cited by 98
W(h)ither thecommunityin community land trusts?
DeFilippis, J., Stromberg, B., & Williams, O. R. (2017) · Journal of Urban Affairs · doi:10.1080/07352166.2017.1361302 · Cited by 61
Crabtree, L. (2005) · Geoforum · doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.04.002 · Cited by 51
Pushing back the frontiers of property: Community land trusts and low-income housing in urban Kenya
Midheme, E., & Moulaert, F. (2013) · Land Use Policy · doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.05.005 · Cited by 48
Making Housing More Affordable
(2010) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781444327854 · Cited by 47
Accommodating Australians: Commonwealth Government Involvement in Housing
Troy, P. N. (2012) · Griffith Research Online · Cited by 47
Basile, P., & Ehlenz, M. M. (2020) · Habitat International · doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2019.102108 · Cited by 47
Poggio, T. (2012) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203182260 · Cited by 43
Accommodating Australians. Commonwealth Government Involvement in Housing
Badcock, B. (2013) · Urban Policy and Research · doi:10.1080/08111146.2013.776477 · Cited by 43
Temkin, K. M., Theodos, B., & Price, D. (2013) · Housing Studies · doi:10.1080/02673037.2013.759541 · Cited by 35
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Anglicare Australia. (2023). Rental Affordability Snapshot. National Report. Fourteenth Edition. https://www.anglicare.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Rental-Affordability-Snapshot-National-Report.pdf
- Clarke, A., & Heywood, A. (2012). Understanding the second-hand market for shared ownership properties. Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research.
- Thaden, E. (2010). Outperforming the market: Making sense of the low rates of delinquencies and foreclosures in community land trusts. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Edges of Owner-Occupation versus Rentier Capitalism
Smith, S. J., & Wood, G. (2025) · Housing Theory and Society · doi:10.1080/14036096.2025.2546307 · Cited by 8
Susilawati, C., Amar, J. H. N., Armitage, L. A., & Jiaxuan, E. (2025) · International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis · doi:10.1108/ijhma-05-2025-0130 · Cited by 5
Property and values: the affordability, accessibility, and autonomy of collaborative housing
Jepma, M., Savini, F., & Coppola, A. (2024) · International Journal of Housing Policy · doi:10.1080/19491247.2024.2388924 · Cited by 5
Grimstad, S., Crabtree, L., Power, E. R., Ayres, L., & Perry, N. (2024) · Housing Studies · doi:10.1080/02673037.2024.2428744 · Cited by 2
Spicer, J. S., & Trana, M. (2025) · International Journal of Housing Policy · doi:10.1080/19491247.2025.2482229 · Cited by 2
Public Participation in Policy Making: Sentiment Analysis of TAPERA Policy on Twitter
Rulandari, N. (2024) · Ilomata International Journal of Social Science · doi:10.61194/ijss.v5i3.1296 · Cited by 1
Gomez, M. P. N., Ma, X., & Yang, C. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6182453
Yang, C., Xiao, M., Miao, J. T., & Li, Y. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7675031
Metadata
- Authors
- Crabtree-Hayes, L.
- Affiliations
- Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia
- Venue
- International Journal of Housing Policy
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2024-07-02
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 521-545
- ISSN
- 1461-6718 (ISSN-L)
- 1949-1247
- 1949-1255
- OpenAlex
- W4400420443
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3
- FWCI
- 8.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Housing Policy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- City of Port Phillip
- Inner Melbourne Action Plan
- St Kilda Community Housing Ltd
- Mount Alexander Community Land Ltd
- The Committee for Lorne
- SEMZ Property Group
- Marrickville Council
- Hobart Ecovillage
- Servants Community Housing
- Western Sydney University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Collaborative and Sustainable Housing Initiatives
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Housing Market and Economics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Housing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
- Keywords
- community land trusts, affordable housing, housing affordability, resale restrictions, housing cooperatives, private rental housing, social housing, housing policy, housing market
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-03, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-03 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
